In attempts to unravel the essence of the events of the 1937 year in the USSR

Since the death of Stalin, at first the Soviet, and now the Russian, public has been trying to convince that the repressions of the 30-40's were of a gigantic scale and had no ground besides a “personality cult”. Allegedly, in the same 1937 there were neither state-level criminals, nor enemies of the people, nor working for foreign intelligence, nor embezzlers. Allegedly, this is a myth, which became the reason for the unwinding of the repressive mechanism.

Historian Alexander Kolpakidi reflects on this topic on TV Day.

According to the historian, we have a strange idea about the interwar period of 1922-1941. People seriously believe that immediately after the end of the civil war, the country was only engaged in the calm and serene construction of factories, power plants, railways and other things.

Kolpakidi:

From 1929 to 1932-33, the country was actually undergoing a second civil war. It was attended by millions of people from both sides. The GPU troops were already lacking. The army is involved. And these processes with open collisions are tops. Gangs were created, illegal armed groups.

The historian notes that there were attempts to disrupt work, carried out terrorist attacks. The country paid a high price for forced modernization. In this regard, the situation with the 1937 year, which is called the year of the most massive "Stalinist repressions", can be designated as the consequences arising from the events of the beginning of the 1930's.

Alexander Kolpakidi is trying to present a "clue" to the essence of the events of the 1937 year in the USSR:

Comments

[anjey]

Everything was, there is no smoke without fire - and spies of foreign intelligence and former uninformed White Guards and kulak gangs and enemies of the people and discontent in the top military personnel of the Red Army but also excesses on this ground from different functionaries from law enforcement agencies, amateurs curry favor at the expense of these repressions, denunciations and slander of the innocent, various immoral and unscrupulous marginals, envious neighbors and colleagues, for whom the system of repression was a tool to eliminate objectionable ...

[Fraracol_2]

There is no need to blame any "functionaries". This would not have happened if it had not been for such a built state system.

[anjey]

The better the capsystem it gave rise to fascism and Nazism, unleashed more than one world war with millions of victims and a mass of local wars and coups, spawned a huge sea of ​​terrorists creating pseudo-states. ???

[AU Ivanov.]

The socialist system spawned Pol Pot and Mao Zedong, who destroyed several million of its citizens during the Cultural Revolution. Radish horseradish is not sweeter.

[zoill]

It’s even sweeter: the USSR was the second country in the world in all economic indicators, now it’s somewhere at the level of the Papuans. 10 years after the death of Mao, China becomes the world leader in all respects!

[Kirill Dou]

spawned a huge sea of ​​terrorists creating pseudo-states

- Well, in this capitalism, it is far from socialism. The current leadership of the Palestinian Authority is Islamic fundamentalists with a socialist soul. And how many terrorist formations gave rise to African socialism - one can be amazed.

[Gosh 60]

Quote: Kolpakidi

There were attempts to disrupt the work, carried out terrorist attacks. The country paid a high price for forced modernization. In this regard, the situation since 1937, which is called the year of the most massive "Stalinist repressions", can be designated as consequences arising from the events of the early 1930s.

This still needs to be investigated. And only archives will help in this, and not the preconceived opinion of researchers, which are sometimes few. Discussions on this topic will not be of any use, but will only lead to mutual enmity in society and further to the weakness of the state, if not to death, "God forbid."

[AV]

She is better because she did not exterminate her own people.

[Yuri Marunchenko]

A cap system is what is it, and what else is a system in modern civilization? Surely communist, but it also emerged from the capital system and has already shown its failure

[Ross xnumx]

It was necessary to inspect to the end in order to understand that Stalin was saying correctly:

Like the fact that:

The wind is getting stronger ...

[Kirill Dou]

not the wind, but insanity in these pictures.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: Kirill Dou

not the wind, but insanity in these pictures.

Insanity in the heads of liberotas. And in the pictures, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (Dzhugashvili). All your propaganda crumbles due to the fact that it is a lie, and the people have a memory and you can not do anything about it.

By the way, December 21 will be the laying of flowers at the grave of Stalin and something tells you that there will be even more flowers.

[Kirill Dou]

and the people have a memory

- not "the memory of the people," but the Stalinists "Stockholm syndrome."

and something tells you that there will be even more flowers

- well stunned how many flowers for the 15 millionth city

[SOVIET UNION 2]

And what system did capitalism create? In the states, it seems there is a monument similar to Stonehage, put to the winners of the strong over the weak. The population of the Earth should not exceed 500 million people! Watch the movie, The weak must die.

[antivirus]

grandfather told the prim at the same time (early 80's) -
"I had a bride (? love) Natasha, a member of the Komsomol. her fists burned in 29 g"
I don’t remember - maybe "she suggested, persuaded to join the Komsomol"
then they started building the IvGRES gKomsomolsk-- they burnt the hut with the workers, at night, locked it up and ... all

[maidan.izrailovich]

... if there weren’t a similar state system built.

Dear not comrade, here are the current data on the number of prisoners in the world by country. The beacon of "democracy" is in the first place there.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_стран_по_количеству_заключённых
Apparently they have some kind of state system.

[Kirill Dou]

Well, of course, if you take away property, land, tools and livestock from the peasant-owners, you will get "terrorists" and "bandits" who will hate you and organize sabotage. "The mustachioed effective manager Joe" himself created the problem, and then began to "solve" it in the most accessible way.

This video is an attempt not to "unravel", but to "justify" the consequences "of the genius of the" mustachioed "leader of nations.

[anjey]

But there were rehabilitated homeless children who turned into people, a crushed organized crime, an economic leap supported by the majority of the population of the USSR, ideology, a friend was a friend, comrade and brother, many people became better, with enthusiasm and not for Salvage, they did great things in all areas of life ., this was the power of the Soviet system

[Kirill Dou]

But there were re-educated street children who went out into the people

- well, at least something good

routed organized crime

- replaced by the state, yeah.

economic leap

- which could have been achieved without such sacrifices.

supported by the majority of the population of the USSR

- who asked him (the population)?

man to man friend, comrade and brother worked

- especially in the form of denunciations, universal paranoia.

on enthusiasm and not for Salvage, did great things in all areas of life

- it’s also a shame that big things were done only on enthusiasm, without a normal monetary reward.

this was the power of the Soviet system

- as history has shown, its strength was so-so. Capitalism is stronger.

[anjey]

You can laugh out loud, but there will be a future for the ideas of socialism and capitalism will lead us to it with the help of another World War

[lucul]

You can laugh out loud, but behind the ideas of socialism

As if yes, but the presence of robotic slaves is a prerequisite.
And this is coming soon ....

[freddyk]

. as history has shown, her strength was so-so. Capitalism is stronger.

That's right, it is only in fairy tales that good conquers evil. In life, the opposite is true. For evil has no principles and rules. It is cunning, insidious and dodgy. Goodness has no chance, even fists will not help.

[Kirill Dou]

There is no "good and evil". There is realism and utopianism. Capitalism, for all its problems, is quite real and viable. Socialism and even more so communism - no. That's the whole problem.

[freddyk]

Quote: Kirill Dou

There is no "good and evil". There is realism and utopianism. Capitalism, for all its problems, is quite real and viable. Socialism and even more so communism - no. That's the whole problem.

Socialism, and especially communism, is an ideal society to which humanity should strive. After all, one must strive for the best, right?

[Vadim237]

Such a society will never be as it always will be: envious, greedy and vile people, but also lazy.

[Kirill Dou]

After all, one must strive for the best, right

- so, only there is nothing "ideal" in communism.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Capitalism, with all its problems, is quite real and viable. Socialism and especially communism - no.

Yeah. This is especially acute in the example of communist China, which is slowly starting to stifle American capitalism.

[Vadim237]

China began its market activity with money and production - which Western countries brought back from the 70s - the impetus for this was a large and cheap labor force, as well as a very cheap energy carrier - coal, now it occupies 67% of China's energy sector. If you want to see socialism and communism, go to the DPRK.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: Vadim237

China began its market activity with money and production - which Western countries brought back from the 70s - the impetus for this was a large and cheap labor force, as well as a very cheap energy carrier - coal, now it occupies 67% of China's energy sector. If you want to see socialism and communism, go to the DPRK.

Do not like China, look at Vietnam with a booming economy. By the way, China recently published a study on what would happen if the USSR did not fall apart. There are many beeches, but the general conclusion on economic indicators is clearly not in favor of the United States. But just what now to talk about what is not ...

[Kirill Dou]

look at Vietnam's booming economy.

- Vietnam has a mixed economy as well as China.

In 1986, a period of reforms began to develop market relations while maintaining socialist development guidelines. In 1990, the National Assembly adopted the first laws on private enterprises, on joint-stock companies and on limited liability companies, the model for which was French law.

The new socio-economic relations were also confirmed in the 1992 Constitution, according to which economic life is based on a nationwide, collective and private property (v. 15) [62].

The privatization of a number of state enterprises was carried out, the number of which decreased from 12 in 084 to 1991 in 6300.

Market reforms have led to good results. From 1990 to 1997, GDP grew annually by 8,9%. In 1995-1997, Vietnam was a leader among ASEAN member countries. By 2000, per capita GDP was $ 400. Foreign direct investment, which in 1991 was ≈ $ 2,3 billion, increased in 1997 to $ 31,2 billion, accounting for 30% of all investments. In 1998, export of goods and services accounted for 42% of GDP, import - 47% of GDP [51].

So the "fast-growing economy of Vietnam" is just a consequence of the introduction of capitalist elements into their economy.

[Vadim237]

You continue to live in a parallel universe of communism - in the real world, only one country has remained with it.

[Kirill Dou]

Communist China

- modern China, firstly, is far from being communist. Ordinary state capitalism under the guise of "the ideas of the great Mao." Secondly, before actually starting to stifle the capitalism of the United States, China as before Washington in the pose of the famous sea crustacean.

[lucul]

Capitalism, with all its problems, is quite real and viable.

I do not argue - but with endless resources and constantly expanding markets. As soon as it ceases to expand - immediately the war, with a decrease in the food supply - they will cut out all the "extra" population.

[lucul]

That's right, it is only in fairy tales that good conquers evil. In life, the opposite is true. For evil has no principles and rules. It is cunning, insidious and dodgy. Goodness has no chance, even fists will not help.

This is not so, evil causes a transformation of both body and spirit .....

[zoill]

What the hell, for 34 years of the current "kingdom of freedom and democracy" there is not even a smell of any "economic leap. As if Putinoids are not puffed up. But there is a complete devouring of the population created under Soviet rule and the final savagery of the population!

[evgic]

There was nothing to take, do not carry nonsense. That minuscule of land that the peasants had did not at all provide them with at least some adequate life. And the land confiscated from the landlords and large landowners was distributed to the peasants by the Soviet government. In addition, the correctness of the enlargement of enterprises c was confirmed by time. It’s different in our climate.

[Kirill Dou]

There was nothing to take, do not carry nonsense.

- 50 million hectares of land were withdrawn during dispossession. Nifiga himself "there was nothing to take away."

In addition, the correctness of the enlargement of enterprises c was confirmed by time.

- if entry into a collective farm was voluntary, there would be no complaints.

It’s different in our climate.

- What climate are you talking about? About the climate of the Northern territories or, say. Krasnodar Territory?

[Mcar]

Quote: Kirill Dou

during dispossession, 50 million hectares of land were withdrawn. Nifiga himself "there was nothing to take away"

400 thousand families of tsapoks burnt out. We divide 50 million hectares into 400 thousand families, we get an average of 125 hectares. How, one wonders, did the hoes manage to acquire such allotments, if the average peasant economy before collectivization is 2-3 hectares?

Quote: Kirill Dou

if joining a collective farm was voluntary, there would be no complaints

You do not know the history of the issue.

Collectivization was voluntary. In some places, the agitators pressed too much, it was. After the article "Dizziness with Success" (1930), a) overly zealous agitators were punished, b) private traders survived until the collapse of the USSR. There were such eccentrics who entered and left the collective farm 2, 3, 4 and even 5 times.

[Kirill Dou]

How, one wonders, the hoes managed to acquire such allotments

- bought up, of course. How else?

Collectivization was voluntary.

- og. And cattle with land and tools were also voluntarily selected

a) overly zealous agitators punished

- of course, they found scapegoats and punished)

private traders survived until the collapse of the USSR.

- There were no private traders in the USSR. The land was not private property.

There were such eccentrics who entered and left the collective farm 2, 3, 4, and even 5 times.

- what else to do with the collective farm? Just "get in and out"

[Mcar]

Quote: Kirill Dou

How, one wonders, the hoes managed to acquire such allotments

- bought up, of course. How else?

private traders survived until the collapse of the USSR.

- There were no private traders in the USSR. Land was not private property.

One of two things, either you have a memory like that of a girl - so short that you don’t remember what you said a minute ago, or you are trolling.

The land in the USSR could not be held in private hands by law, and if the then hoes bought it, then they would have to be sent to a colony for good violation of the law.

[Kirill Dou]

Quote: McAr

or you have a memory like that of a girl - so short

- about went true sexism))

that you don’t remember what you said a minute ago,

- I remember everything perfectly.

there is no contradiction, because the purchase of land by wealthy peasants was still taking place Until 1917 year... It began at the end of the 19th century, and reached its peak after the reforms of Stolypin. By 2017, land in the Russian Empire was either landlord or communal (peasant community), or was owned by kulaks and middle peasants. The "Decree on Land" announced the confiscation of the landlord's land - it was it that was first distributed to the peasants. At first they did not touch the kulaks and middle peasants, as they hoped that they themselves, in view of "class solidarity", would eventually give up their property. In addition, Lenin took a course towards NEP, which included, among other things, the use of elements of a market economy in agriculture. Although officially the kulaks and middle peasants were not supposed to have property, they were not touched, because the Soviets did not want problems with the influential stratum of the peasantry. They did not openly oppose the still shaky "power of the Soviets" - and all right.

And then, when it became clear that the well-to-do peasants put on socialist utopias and did not want to part with their property, then the insanity called "mass collectivization" began.

[Mcar]

Quote: Kirill Dou

there is no contradiction, because the purchase of land by wealthy peasants took place before 1917. It began at the end of the 19th century; it reached its peak after the reforms of Stolypin. By 2017, land in the Russian Empire was either landowner or communal (peasant community), or was owned by kulaks and middle peasants.

No one has ever interrogated you, citizen Russophobe, about what happened before 1917 or until 1812. So don’t run ahead of the engine - it’s all the way to the interests of the Soviet people’s government. Who, for what and in the interests of whom she suppressed.

Whom. Fists who are world-eaters, rural moneylenders.
For what. For violation of many laws of the USSR, such as speculation, exploitation, usurious activity.
In the interest of whom. ~ 1% parasitic was suppressed in the interests of the rest.

And no need to whistle. The land, which previously belonged to the royal family, church and landowners, was handed over by the Soviet government to the peasants. They also divided it by the community according to the number of eaters. So no kulaks "were touched at first," except for Russophobic dreams, did not exist. All pre-revolutionary kulaks disappeared into the Civil - were killed or emigrated. Everything was, as it were, from a blank slate - in the early 20s, approximately the same amount of land for each peasant. And by the end of the 20s, in just one decade, a class of the rural bourgeoisie - the kulak - was formed.

The natural food for the fist is the poor - there will be no poor and the fist will be blown away: no one will come to ask for grain, horses, equipment, etc. .. And the more poor, the richer the fist - just like in Russia now, the more beggars, the more and richer oligarchs. And this state of affairs, citizen Russophobe, you like, you are not even ashamed of this. 1% of fat rages, and 4/5 are in poverty. In one country. And this, apparently, is your ideal society. And such ideals make me sick.

[Kirill Dou]

And I don’t need your permission to say something

And everything else is nonsense of the Stalinist mare.

Sick - go clean your stomach, do not suffer. It is advisable to go to the DPRK. And stay there, all the same, you Stalinists, there’s nothing to catch here already.

[strannik1985]

It is advisable to go to the DPRK. And stay there, all the same, you Stalinists, there’s nothing to catch here already.

It’s funny when as an example they cite a country that has been under sanctions for decades.

[Kirill Dou]

But there, Stalin is the best friend of the Korean people. You'll like it)

[Lyuba1965_01]

She once knew one family from Ukraine, at the time of the arrival of Soviet power the family was medium, not rich, but not poor either.
Three brothers.
At the time of the beginning of Soviet power, one went to the White Guards, fought against the Reds. Then he left them, confessed to the Cheka, served a 5-year sentence. He went out, became an accountant on a collective farm, fought in the Second World War, and rose from private to captain.
Another was an ideological communist; he joined the Bolsheviks back in 1916. He was the director of a collective farm in his own farm.
The youngest was in a gang squad, which operated in the area of ​​the surrounding farms.
And now this situation: in the morning the middle one leads 3 cows to the collective farm herd, and at night the younger one with his gang drives them away from there and returns home. In the morning the middle one again leads the cows to the collective farm, at night the younger one returns them home. In the end, the youngest got tired of it, he didn’t drive the cows anymore. Then he brought home the cows that he had stolen at night from another farm.
Then my father got up, said that everyone should leave it as it is, it’s worthless to quarrel with the brothers.
Before the war, the younger settled down, began working as a tractor driver on the same collective farm, and fought in the Second World War.
True, the NKVD brought a criminal case against him, but they released him, because he was a good mechanic, and even a local mechanic, so they apparently decided that he would benefit from his native farm.
As I understood it, if to repress everyone who was in the gangs, then some farms needed to be planted completely.
And the point is not that they were against socialism, but the fact that many of these gangs were poor at one time, and here they had the opportunity to get rich.
Yes, these gangs themselves also self-destructed, the civilian freemen ended, those who were previously poor began to see some results of the appearance of collective farms, and therefore they themselves began to surrender those who had previously been covered from the communists and the NKVD.
Yes, and those killed on both sides, i.e. from among the bandits and from among the supporters of the new government began to play a role in the attitude to these gangs.
And even in the 60s, brothers, how they get together at home at the table (everyone continued to live in one farm and in the same stepfather's house), so everything is fine, friendly and kind.
As they leave the yard, they recall each other's old grievances, begin to argue about communism.
So, as you see, everything was different.

[Lyuba1965_01]

Suppose there was so much land taken from the kulaks.
But what does this mean?
That the peasant poor and farm laborers who were joking for their fists had no land or had its meager.
Not to take the land from the kulaks - so the poor would plow the kulaks.
Also, do not forget that it is precisely the form in which the abolition of serfdom was passed, and created such a division into fists and poor.
Therefore, the poor and landless peasants did not become such because of their laziness, as some sometimes deign to say.

[AU Ivanov.]

After the revolution, all peasants were placed on almost equal terms. But some of them were able to get rich, while others were as if they were naked, so they remained. Some were plowed, while others lay on the stove.

[naidas]

Quote: AS Ivanov.

After the revolution, all peasants were placed on almost equal terms.

It's like in 1991, everyone got a voucher.

[Kirill Dou]

That the peasant poor and farm laborers who were joking for their fists had no land or had its meager.

- of course, because they were hired workers, because they did not have their own land and means of production.

Far from always the peasant became a farm laborer out of despair - many worked "for an uncle" of their own accord. Why? Yes, because the income was quite good, and there was no need to worry about the maintenance of large property and its management. When dispossession of kulaks began, not only the kulaks, but also a significant part of their hired workers, who understood that the collective farms would have a full scribe, opposed the authorities. So it turned out later.

But the poor were under the tsar, that during the early USSR, poor, although the revolution gave them landowners. Why? Yes because. We need to work, and not rely on the community first, and then on the collective farm.

[Lyuba1965_01]

You are deeply mistaken.
In Russia, their allotment of land for the peasants was sacred, and they would never have left it empty.
The thing is that, according to the law on the abolition of serfdom, the peasants were not given land, they had to buy most of it.
Moreover, allotments for seven were given by the presence of men in it.
So, if the family had more women than men, then there were fewer allotments.
Suppose a family of 6 people was given 4 plots to a family of 4 men (children were also considered).
And for a family where there were 6 people, but there were 3 men, for example, they gave 3 plots.
But the number of eaters was the same!
The girls got married and became workers in new families, and 3 people, of which there were necessarily 2 old men, simply could not physically process their plots.
Allotments were forbidden to be sold, which means they could not give them a dowry.
So it turns out that in the new family, where the young went, there were more workers, paying a loan for land became easier (someone always went to the city to earn money, and rather pay off with a land loan, which, incidentally, was given for large interest). And in this family, the number of employees did not decrease, and extra money was started, loans were paid faster, and the money went to other needs and affairs.
Previously, mostly peasants were taken into the soldiers. But on the soldier who was in the army, allotments were not issued. He returned home after the First World War, sometimes with disabilities, and how could they help the family? And if he had a mother, father, wife and 2 daughters, then put on this family stood out 1, and the whole family had to feed on him. sent their daughters to laborers in order to at least somehow pay a loan for the land.

[Kirill Dou]

In Russia, their allotment of land for the peasants was sacred, and they would never have left it empty.

- stop you idealizing people already, finally. There were all sorts of peasants - hardworking and lazy, initiative and gouging. No one "in Russia" had any "sacred awe" before the earth.

I do not argue that the land reform of Alexander II was carried out through one place - in our country there is a tradition, reforms are passed through this place, and then complain. So it would be better if the "people's" Soviet government was looking for mechanisms to improve the situation of the poor, and not to worsen the situation of wealthy peasants. And it made all the peasants poor in one fell swoop. This is elementary laziness and inability to govern.

The principle of "take and divide" has never led to anything good for anyone.

[Lyuba1965_01]

Have you looked at the statistics?
How many were wealthy and how many were poor?
Why should the government of the Soviets think of a minority, moreover, of the class enemy of those for whom they fought?
Also, the number of wealthy and poor was not proportional.
In one region, for example, there were 100 wealthy and 9000 poor.
In another region, 400 are wealthy and 6000 are poor.
This is due to the fact that the climatic conditions in different regions are different, like the quality of the land, its fertility, the quantity of the crop and the ease of cultivating the land depended on it.
And how, at what means did the USSR have to improve the situation of millions of peasants?
Due to what, if you do not take away the land from the kulaks and do not give them all to common use?
Relocate peasants from densely populated areas to sparsely populated?
Take somewhere from the air land on which the poor and landless peasants could work?
Well, what is your way out?
What would you do?

[Kirill Dou]

How many were wealthy and how many were poor?

- There were always fewer prosperous ones. So it should be, it's natural.

And how, at what means did the USSR have to improve the situation of millions of peasants?

- You see what’s the matter ... the USSR did not improve the situation of poor peasants. He simply worsened the position of wealthy peasants. He created only the illusion of solving the problem, but did not really solve it. Instead of stimulating the growth of the middle class (middle class in the peasantry), the Soviet government simply made everyone poor.

Due to what, if you do not take away the land from the kulaks and do not give them all to common use?

- you see, the USSR did not distribute the land taken from the kulaks for "general use." He simply made the land the property of the state.

Bottom line: the poor peasants did not have their own land before collectivization, and did not have it after. And the kulaks and middle peasants lost their lands. And at the same time they lost the motivation to work and instead of productive work they began to engage in sabotage, "sabotage", to arrange peasant riots, which began to crush the troops.

Relocate peasants from densely populated areas to sparsely populated?

- Why not? Relocate to uninhabited lands (there are still a lot of them in Russia), provide tools of labor, help with money for the first time so that the peasant can "rise" - and then let him work, work on his land, benefit both himself and society ...

That would be the government of a healthy person. But the Soviet government was the government of a smoker. Mustachioed smoker. Pun.

[Lyuba1965_01]

In something I can, and would agree with you, if it were in our time.
But you cannot project the problems of the past into our time.
There were other conditions: both economic and political.
The young country, under sanctions, is pursuing accelerated successful industrialization.
He pays for all Western supplies with wheat, because even in gold no one in the West and the United States sells anything to her, and machines, technologies, as it is fashionable to say now, are very necessary.
1. Relocate peasants?
But, when different peoples were resettled in other regions, what was the cry then, what now?
Do you think that the still not consolidated power had such an opportunity?
2. To give everyone an instrument of labor is money, and even these instruments of labor must be produced, and many factories are only being built.
3. It was also necessary to build houses for them at a new place at the expense of the state, but where is the money?
It is not on bare earth that they live.
4. The settlers also need time to settle in, because they had to first build a house for themselves, settle in. Any peasant will say that this is not a matter of one day.
5. Also, on fertile lands, crops are good, there was more crowding of peasants, and they would have to be resettled in areas with a poor climate for farming and with not very high-quality land. This means a decrease in yield, which was very important for the country, because, as I said above, the USSR paid for wheat.
This whole story with relocation would take at least 2-3 years, and still it was necessary to prepare the land for sowing, i.e. uproot stones, stumps, cut down trees.
Whether this was a strength for one peasant family, that means they would have prepared the land for another 2 years.
6. Many peasants were horseless, which means that they also had to give out a horse from the state, otherwise they would never have been able to plow new lands, or just cultivate it well.
Many did not even have a cow, which means they had to be given a cow too, so that the poor could get to their feet and get out of poverty.
Even if there was a cow and a horse, then how to transfer them to a new place, and not just one family, but many thousands of families?
This is how many trains and wagons would be needed ?.
7. Give a tractor from the state, at least 1-2, to the newly formed villages?
So how does this differ from state farms, where the tools are common there?
And who would repair them, keep an eye on them, how would a queue be made up of those who wanted to use such equipment?
Who would bring fuel and lubricants there?
State?
Calculate the cost of all this and see if the country could handle it?
8. In connection with industrialization, many peasants left for construction projects in the city, because, as you know, labor in the city is much easier than peasant labor.
Who would feed these citizens, if the peasants could only end-to-end provide their family with bread, then they would hardly have any surpluses for sale to the state. But you still had to pay wheat with the West and the States for equipment, so could these small family farms give so much grain to the country?
9. The kulaks had a lot of land, so they attracted farm laborers.
The land would not be taken from them, and they would still have to take wage workers from among the same poor.
But who would want to go to their service, if the new government provided the peasants with allotments, gave a tool of labor, domestic animals?
It is clear that everyone would want to work for themselves.
And the kulaks would either be forced to cultivate their land, which simply did not have enough workers in the family, or they would go bankrupt, well, maybe they would sell the surplus land to the state.
But at what price and which plots of land?
It is known that in central Russia, where there is a lot of fertile land, there were many forests.
This means that they would sell land closer to the forest, care for it is more difficult (any peasant will confirm this), and what would be the benefit to the state?
To pay a fist for the land that he considers it necessary to sell, to settle the peasants there, as well as to provide them with everything necessary, and this is a big expense.
Thus, industrialization would drag on for several more years, and Stalin was in a hurry with it) As it later turned out, he did the right thing if it weren’t for that — the USSR would hardly have won the Second World War).
So it’s easy to just talk, but how and what kind of chiches to do is another question.

[naidas]

Quote: Kirill Dou

you see what the matter is ... the USSR did not improve the situation of the poor peasants. He simply worsened the position of wealthy peasants.

Now the government is improving the situation of the rich, making the situation of the poor worse.
What do you think is not right then, right now?

[AU Ivanov.]

First, they distributed the land, and then they took it back. Together with cattle and agricultural implements, which the peasant acquired independently.

[Vadim237]

“There was nothing to take away, don’t talk nonsense. The scanty land that the peasants had didn’t provide them at least some sufficient life. And the land confiscated from the landowners and large landowners was distributed to the peasants by the Soviet government.” - It's strange, my grandfather's family of 11 people was provided for everyone, even though his father was a middleman until 1929 and there were no pensions or regional transfers which are now - they lived by their own labor until his family was dispossessed, and then only one grandfather remained from the whole family - it was summer 41.

[SOVIET UNION 2]

Well, how bourgeois property is taken away! England, fencing. Some lambs are bred, others become tramps. They hang them for vagrancy. Freedom? How did both America and Australia conquer? The same America 30s. The dispersal of the demonstration of World War I veterans, the dispersal of millions of farmers (owed to banks). With millions of hungry, the destruction of food (so that prices do not fall). Confiscation of gold under pain of criminal liability. Public works with a payment of $ 30 per day and a deduction of 25. During the war, the deportation of the Japanese, Germans, Italians. And the US population in 1930, 148,5 million, and in 1940, 147,7 million. And in the USSR, 1930, 156 million, in 1940, 194,5 million. Was it scary to live under the Stalin in the USSR? Killings in 1940m 6 thousand 549 people. 2005 is the year of 30 thousand 800 people.

[Kirill Dou]

And in the USSR, the 1930s were 156 million, in 1940, 194,5 million.

- But is it that the USSR from 1930 to 1940 did not grow so weak in size, having annexed territories (and, accordingly, the population of these territories) in Central Asia and Eastern Europe?

[SOVIET UNION 2]

Modern Russia has grown in the Crimea and gives passports to citizens of Ukraine and LDNR. But the population is decreasing.

[Foul skeptic]

And the population of the United States in 1930, 148,5 million, and in 1940, 147,7 million

The source you used gives erroneous information. In 1930 - 123 million, in 1940 - 132 million

[SOVIET UNION 2]

The "mustachioed effective manager Joe" created the problem himself, and then began to "solve" it in the most accessible way.

October 27, 1917-21 Feb 1924 V.I. Lenin Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (according to the modern-President of the USSR). Since April 1922, the duties of V.I. Lenin was performed by L.B.Kamenev. From Feb 2, 1924-19 Dec 1930, A.I. Rykov. From December 19, 1930-6 May 1941, V.M. Molotov. From May 1941 - March 5, 1953, I.V. Stalin.

[Kirill Dou]

So what?) Like, he didn’t start mass collectivization, repressions, and all that jazz, because he was officially Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars only in May 41?) Okay, but then why is industrialization credited to him if it started already in 1929 and ended at 41?)

Somehow it turns out strange - it is not to blame for repression, hunger, and industrialization is his merit)

The Stalinists have funny logic. by golly.

[SOVIET UNION 2]

According to anti-Stalinists, Stalin became the full head immediately after the death of Lenin!

[Sergej1972]

In modern terms, this is the prime minister.

[Lexus]

It should have been repeated in 1987. Start with marked. And the country would be saved from collapse, and the world would not shudder under the blows of "democracy". God, how many people have we lost in the last 30 years?

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: lexus

God, how many people have we lost in the last 30 years?

Exactly!!! The longest period of known history, when the population has been dying for 30 years ...

[AU Ivanov.]

The higher the standard of living, the lower the birth rate. In the Russian Empire, people generally bred like rabbits.

[effect]

You might think that the states sat less or died during the Great Depression when they worked for food in labor camps. Therefore, then the specialists went from the states and from Europe to the union to do industrialization.

[Vadim237]

And what would this give the country bankrupt - which was the USSR of the 1987 model year? Too many world dependents, he hung on his neck starting from the 60s so they him, including, and broke his neck. It was possible to save the country - no, Ukraine and the Baltic states would have left on their own, and the rest of the country would have followed the path of Russia in the 90s with the transition to a market economy with all that it implies.

[Mcar]

From 1929 to 1932-33, the country was actually undergoing a second civil war.

So it is - civil war.

In 1929, 8278 terrorist attacks were registered in the USSR. 161 counterrevolutionary organizations, 5779 counterrevolutionary groups, 281 active gangs have been identified. 8 thousand terrorist attacks per year is an average of 22 per day. The question is - should the authorities have responded to explosions, arson of buildings, cars, property, to the murder of people?

[Gardamir]

Once they reproached that they planted a spikelet. Times have changed, now they are imprisoning for SMS. Or this is what someone said

He threw a plastic cup at a government official - nothing. Then a plastic bottle - again nothing. Then he will throw a glass bottle, a stone, then they will start to shoot and smash the shops. We must not allow this! ”

[AU Ivanov.]

In those days, for such an SMS, at least they would give a dozen. And as a maximum, the highest measure of social protection. And spare more cup throwers. Exactly until then you will regret until these protesters set fire to your car.

[Gardamir]

I’m not for the protestors, I’m talking about the one who spoke out “now is not the 37th,” but he himself has to act the same way. To throw mud at the previous rulers, while in their place you act the same way only with an adjustment for time.

[AU Ivanov.]

All the same, the 37th year is a forced measure. Without the whip, our bird-three would not have overcome the ascent. Now the protest movement is initiated not by the forces that wish the country prosperity: there are no disadvantaged people in it - mostly snickering, like the intelligentsia. That is not food - there is not enough power.

[Gardamir]

I agree, the intelligentsia is those who are always dissatisfied at all times.

[karabass]

The society itself was sick with mass psychosis - some holy believing in communism and pests were ready to kill compatriots, others like sheep massively and voluntarily went to death in the camps. And in our time there are insane people who want to repeat. And they do not understand the idiots that, according to the laws of dialectics, they and their close ones will be the first

[Kirill Dou]

I subscribe to every word.

[knn54]

Something is not clear with Yezhov. If even his mistress was shot in the Yagoda case, then Yezhov’s relatives were not touched. The brother even remained in the post of deputy minister. The process was closed.
In 1936 the so-called Stalin Constitution was adopted. The party nomenklatura was clearly not satisfied with the secret ballot ... when, in addition to party functionaries, the lists included nominees from workers and peasants nominated by meetings of enterprises. And it started.
At one time (well, a very long time ago) I read an article that Yezhov very much ordered the "chosen ones": for which he suffered. Abakumov, it seems, also dug a lot: he was arrested under Stalin, and shot under Khrushchev.
For reference: demography in the USSR:
- as of January 1937, 164 thousand people;
- as of June 1941 195 102 thousand people.

[Plantagenet]

"If even his mistress was shot in the Yagoda case, Yezhov's relatives were not touched."

Actually, Yezhov’s wife would be shot. But she got poisoned with luminal very on time. Before her death, she received from her husband a luminal and a small toy, it seems it was a penguin figure. Rumor had it that it was a sign that he could not save her further. After that, she was poisoned. Whether it is true or not is still not known for certain

[karabass]

Yezhov, before shooting, testified that he worked poorly, and therefore could only shoot 10 security officers, and if he hadn’t been lazy, he would have cleaned 000

[Plantagenet]

In our country, all the problems are from the lazy. How well we would live now if Comrade Ezhov N.I. not lazy.

[AU Ivanov.]

Are you sure you could be born at all?

[Monster_Fat]

At the time of his youth, back in Soviet times, it was necessary to climb all the north, Siberia and the Urals with geological parties. And I have seen enough of the remnants of Soviet concentration camps at the most I do not want. It was not only their quantity that struck me, but the sizes — from huge to very small ones — from one hut. Their location was also surprising - some were located in places where no rational economic activity was possible ... And around every such burial place. Some are marked by decayed sticks, and most are marked by pits with bones that were excavated by animals because they buried in the north no more than a bayonet of a shovel ... How many are buried there? But most of all, I was struck by concentration camps in the Ugra Shar and Taimyr in a truly hellish place of the earth, blown by terrible winds all year ... A real Gulag archipelago ..., not even an archipelago, but a whole country of concentration camps ... I honestly want to all these apologists for Stalinist purges would have experienced all the charms of a Stalinist hard hand after spending so many years in such concentration camps, for some careless comment about the authorities or for a pen that was stolen inadvertently from the office ...

[pv1005]

A real Gulag archipelago ... not even an archipelago, but a whole country of concentration camps ...

Tell me, dear, can you name the differences between the Gulag and the Federal Penitentiary Service?

[Lyuba1965_01]

And why not put on a stolen pen?
Why do we have such a condescending attitude towards theft in the workplace?
After the anarchist years of the revolution and the civilian people, in general, weaned from discipline and normal labor.
And, if not by such harsh measures to bring him to life, then how else?
Or better, as it is now: stole millions and billions and they give you a condition?
You see, if there weren’t 37, there wouldn’t have been a victory in the Second World War, because during this pre-war time people were taught to be punctual, responsible for the assigned work, and not push it to the switchman.
Remember the article for being late to work in factories.
Was it casual?
After all, there are such industries where it is impossible to stop the technological process even for a minute, and here a person is late for his shift.
So, the one who should be replaced, works after night and for some time and for the latecomer?

[Kirill Dou]

Quote: Lyuba1965_01

And why not put on a stolen pen?

- because the punishment must be adequate to the crime.

Remember the article for being late to work in factories.

- yeah, very "brilliant". Delays and violation of discipline can easily be dealt with by deprivation of wages or dismissal, blacklisting, which made it difficult to get a job. This is much more effective than filling prisons with "late" people, which turned ordinary gouges into real recidivist criminals.

So, the one who should be replaced, works after night and for some time and for the latecomer?

- And such people for processing needed to be encouraged. Money, for example.

[Lyuba1965_01]

Dismissal was not an option.
The country underwent industrialization and the dismissed could always find another job, this would not have taught him anything.
They also brought up others in this way, using a living example, so to speak.
A punishment adequate to the crime?
Sorry, but this was considered not just everyday theft, but theft from the state, and you shouldn’t joke with him.

[Kirill Dou]

and the dismissed could always find another job, this would not have taught him anything.

- So the prison did not teach him anything but to deal with real crime later.

They also brought up others in this way, using a living example, so to speak.

- It was enough to learn from the example of deprivation of salaries and dismissal. In the hunger years, staying out of work was much worse than going to jail and camp, where the food was at the very least, but stable.

Sorry, but this was considered not just everyday theft, but theft from the state, and you shouldn’t joke with him.

- I forgive you. The state needed to attend to the eradication of the causes of theft, and not to refine itself in the senseless cruelty of punishment. That would be much more efficient.

[Lyuba1965_01]

I repeat: revolution and civil war have changed people in many ways.
It was possible to kill the class enemy and take away his property.
You could just steal, take without the permission to appropriate another's property.
And only tough methods had to eradicate everything.
Time, time was running out.
There was industrialization, there were a lot of people at construction sites and you can’t follow everyone.
To re-educate each or almost everyone - that’s how many educators it was necessary, how much time to spend on it, and the country had a completely different task - it was necessary to quickly create a modern (for that time, of course) industry.
And wait until everyone is re-educated - alas, too long.
It is very difficult to wean from freemen, it is much easier to get used to it.
Those years were not hungry, the famine was over, so work was everywhere.
But they would also steal hunger, therefore everything had to be stopped immediately, without delay.
Even in our well-fed time, how many would have been corrected if they had been fired?
But the prisons are afraid right away, it's not professional thieves, but amateurs.
Well, the consciousness was instilled that the theft of the same pen from the enterprise is a theft of the whole people, and not just some kind of pampering.

[Kirill Dou]

I repeat: revolution and civil war have changed people in many ways.

- This (October) revolution and the Civil War were generated by the Bolsheviks themselves. As I said, they themselves created the problem, and then began to solve it.

And only tough methods had to eradicate everything.

- the Bolsheviks did not know others. It is difficult to expect anything more from train robbers and "korovans".

Time, time was running out.

- who was running out on someone? Why was Japan able at the same time from a much more backward, completely agrarian country to become one of the leading industrial powers in the world without repression, hunger, concentration camps and other delights?

To re-educate everyone or almost everyone - that’s how many educators it was necessary, how much time to spend on it,

- Yes, there was no need to re-educate anyone. it was just necessary to create normal working conditions. And that’s all.

Those years were not hungry, the famine was over,

- the catastrophic famine was over, but the country was in very distress in this regard until the end of the 30s.

But they would also steal hunger,

- Of course they stole. How not to steal, if cattle, grain, tools are taken away from you, but in return they don’t understand what?

Well, the consciousness was instilled that the theft of the same pen from the enterprise is a theft of the whole nation,

- it was necessary not to "inculcate consciousness", but to create normal conditions. so that people have no reason to steal.

[Lyuba1965_01]

the revolution was not generated by the Bolsheviks.
The first revolution was made just by the liberals.
There would be no civil at all, or it would have been much less long and bloody if the West and the States had not financed the White Guards.
For the Bolsheviks there was a large part of the population, against, mainly, part of the Cossacks.
Judge for yourselves: there were far fewer Bolsheviks than those who were not in this party.
Would the Bolsheviks then be able to defeat if the people did not support them?
The presence of the Entente also helped the Bolsheviks very well: seeing what they were doing, people began to help the new government, since they saw that they were fighting the Entente countries.
They took away the grain?
Well, that was not the invention of the Bolsheviks.
They were invented by Boris Godunov during the famine that happened during his reign.
For the first time in Russian history, he made an attempt to regulate prices - of course, for bread, forbidding raising them to exorbitant heights.
In addition, again for the first time in our history, "food detachments" have dispersed across the country, revealing the hidden bread and forcing the owner to sell it at a set price.
Comparing Russia and Japan is generally funny, and stupid.
Japan rose to imperial gold.
6000 tons of gold exported there by Kolchak is very good money for such a small country.
Also, the USSR was under sanctions, in the so-called. "golden blockade".
I think that you should still look at that time more objectively, detaching yourself from your hatred of the Bolsheviks and of Stalin personally.

[Monster_Fat]

Yes .... How many freaks there are in Russia for whom the price of a person's life and the price of a ballpoint pen or a careless word are unambiguous. Yes ... "The law * say ... Vlad Tepes, who boasted that for any offense in his Transylvania one punishment followed) impalement, and that the coin could lie uncleaned on the street waiting for the owner, for as long , You would have the Stalinists standing up to applaud ... Only now ... turn into camp dust somewhere in YuShara at the libel of a neighbor who saw your newspaper with portraits of Kamenev and Zinoviev, or heard that you are not flattering about playing too early "Pioneer Dawn" ...

[Vadim237]

Do not worry in the near future, Russia will return to this again - all: pseudo-patriots, loafers, drunks, whiners, abusive authorities and other elements of Internet spaces, will be sent to clean and develop the Russian North and the Arctic forcibly, five years of prevention will be for them it is it, the homeland will force itself to love and respect. The officials of the settlers can also be sent there. In the north, entire cities and towns are left to patched up, fenced with barbed wire to put protection and there will be a new GULAG 2.0.

[naidas]

Quote: Vadim237

all: pseudo-patriots, loafers, drunks, whiners, cursers of power and other elements of Internet spaces will be sent for cleaning and development of the Russian north

Stalin’s time is the time of the labor feat of the Soviet people, from a crumbling country with its governments in regions (sometimes with its own armed detachments) to a world power. Today, destruction and falling to the economic bottom, someone will either be forced to restore by methods as you wrote, or disperse, relocate where it is optimal for life and Russia to end.

[Vadim237]

The population grew due to which countries - there were 15 of them in the USSR.

[wt100]

And I just repeat myself ..
Stalin, in those very difficult times, stood at the head of the country, which survived (in the not distant past) civil, world and, in fact, became a weak shadow of the Russian Empire.
And by the fact that he himself (for himself, relatives) left two pipes, and three jackets (I think I'm not very mistaken), these were his thoughts!
The time was fierce, and even the leader needed to be with a steel character so that the counterattack, and the interventionists, did not waste the country

[Aleks2000]

A conspiracy, not a conspiracy, listen ...
But IMHO, there is no evidence of a global conspiracy ... except for the owl on the globe ...
And it is very likely that after the goloukh of 28 and 31 years, people simply flooded into gangs so as not to starve to death ... it has always been like that - hungry, plague, salt riots all over the world and not one "well-fed"
all the more so there are plenty of both former and criminals ...

But the euphorbia is easier to make a landing plan than to really work ....

[Kirill Dou]

To understand how "genius" Joe was, just look at how the Meiji Restoration took place in Japan.

Let me remind you that this period took about 20 years. During this time, an absolutely agrarian country, which did not even have the beginnings of industry, has become one of the leading industrialized countries, not only in the Pacific region, but in the whole world. And all this without mass repressions (there was a short civil war, total number of victims - 4000 people), without hunger, stupid collectivization, concentration camps and other delights of "Stalin's industrialization". And most importantly, the country has created viable economic systemwhich, even after the catastrophe of World War II, allowed Japan to grow relatively fast and become one of the leading economic powers in the world, which it remains to this day. And this is in a country that has neither a large territory, nor a huge agricultural fund, nor resources.

Now let's look at the USSR. Starting conditions are much better. than Japan - there was a fairly developed industry. About the same 20 years of industrialization. Millions of people died from the Civil War and Famine, mass repressions, concentration camps. And most importantly, created unviable economic system, which did not last a century, giving rise to a new social catastrophe. And this is in a country that has the largest territory in the world, has huge agricultural land and mineral reserves.

[Vadim237]

Unlike Russia, Japan is a country of workaholics, and we have half of the population: loafers, alcoholics, koekaker, gouging and hack-raisers, it is extremely difficult to develop such a country with such half, especially as large as Russia is a large part of the territory which is permafrost.

[strannik1985]

Unlike Russia - Japan

The national debt of Japan on October 15, 2019 exceeds 13,5 trillion dollars and this is considered normal.

[Vadim237]

And 6 trillion of GDP every year - the price paid for all this fragrance, the highest percentage of suicides in the world including - at work, the Japanese burn out.

[strannik1985]

And 6 trillion GDP every year

External debt to GDP is 295%.
Maybe the Japanese are workaholics, maybe they burn out at work, but their work and much more is paid for with cut paper. Not only everyone can do this

[naidas]

If several centuries to cut who did not take such a step, looked, etc., too, everyone will become workaholics.

[Lyuba1965_01]

You too simplistic assess the stop in the USSR.
The Russian Empire was an agrarian country, but at the same time, little was gained from the people.
The West refused to accept any money and gold, including in trade settlements with Russia.
GRAIN only.
An embargo was imposed even on oil, timber and other goods from Russia, so there could be no talk of selling it abroad.
Only grain went in the calculations for purchases in the West of the same machines and equipment for
industrialization.
And how could the country after the revolution, the civilian and even the attacks of the Entente, with a weak agricultural economy do it?
Even when he was in the Soviet Socialist Republic in 32-33. hunger, fuse demanded grain.
But Stalin turned to the States with a request to cancel the supply of wheat there during these years, but he was refused.
Give grain under the contract, and do not care that in Russia they are starving to death.
Also, at the time of the revolution, there was practically no equipment in the agricultural sector; the land was cultivated in the old manner - with a plow and a plow, unlike Europe, therefore it was unprofitable.
Every third peasant economy - horseless, plowed on themselves.
Means of cultivating the land - 5,5 million iron plows, 3,6 million wooden plows, and 8 million
wooden preserves
And this is all over Russia!
Many lands were in the zone of risky farming, so from them, if there was a return, it was only in the form of food for those who cultivate it, but not in order to feed the country.
About Japan, you don’t have to stutter at all.
Japan made good money on the revolution.
She was part of the Entente and scoffed at the Far East and Primorye.
Where is Kolchak's gold?
Do not remember?
I will tell you - in Japan.
6 tons of gold went to Japan just like that, that money was the basis of the Japanese economy, it was able to break ahead with it.
And the Bolsheviks got an almost empty royal treasury.
There was industry in Russia, but it was very weak, practically nonexistent.
In 1912 there were 1747 metal-working enterprises in Russia - from a factory to a workshop, with
283771 employees.
Some of them did not produce any marketable product - tram, wagon and train depots,
ship repair plants.
In Germany at the same time - 2 factories and mechanized workshops and 086 workers.
Do not forget that Russia is very vast in territory, and it was difficult to establish transport links in order to successfully develop industry.

[zoill]

well, yes, "having ... no resources" And 6000 tons of Russian gold exported by Kolchak is NOT a resource? With this gold, the USSR would not have turned into an indigenous power in 20, but in 10 years. And as for the "unviable economic system" - the current rulers began to bliss about it when they understood. that NOTHING they themselves are not able to offer or do! Today, such a "viable" ... system that the population is only decreasing, despite the influx of "Papuans" and "maternal capital"

[Kirill Dou]

And 6000 tons of Russian gold exported by Kolchak is NOT a resource?

- and now we are looking at when the Meiji restoration was carried out, and when the "gold was removed by Kolchak".

[naidas]

Quote: Kirill Dou

Now let's look at the USSR. Starting conditions are much better. than Japan

Bullshit, after a year of civil war and the death of 4 thousand people, Japan had better starting conditions than Russia, which destroyed the economy and people since 1914.
In 1872, under the leadership of European engineers, the first railway was opened, connecting Tokyo with Yokohama. Steam locomotives were delivered from Europe, and the station building was designed in the USA. In 1877 and 1881 Industrial exhibitions were held in the country to get acquainted with promising world technologies in industry and in agriculture (as in investing money and technology in China now). In 1877, Alexander Bell drew a telephone line between Tokyo and Yokohama.
Daimyo supporters from Satsuma, Choshu, Tosa and Hizen immediately agreed to the offer to give their possessions, who returned their lands to the monarch along with the population. On July 25, 1868, the government ordered that the same principalities be made to the other principalities, which was carried out without resistance; only twelve princes did not voluntarily transfer the registers of land and people, but were forced to do so by order.
In the USSR they cut for land, but here they give it voluntarily.
and the order of the emperor to cease to be a samurai, try in the USSR the order to cease to be an officer, to abandon the officer’s word?
The slogan "Civilization and Enlightenment" and everyone began to dress like Europeans.
The Russians did not succumb to such training as the Japanese, even after giving land, money, and honor, just over 30000 of them 13 Samurai, 10 Volunteers rebelled. and 10 thousand. recruited from 34 million Japanese (more than 50 thousand people took part in the Antonov uprising, but they didn’t talk about land, they demanded to pay taxes to the state). After 6 were killed. 000 people were executed after the suppression of the uprising and sculpts from the rest of the Japanese that you want.

[nikvic46]

It often happens that base feelings gain the upper hand. Especially when this is all widely promoted. Greediness, the cult of power, the imposition of supernatural forces. Instead of knowledge. Lomonosov said “I don’t want to believe. I want to know.” Popular scientific and cultural literature disappeared. Instead, pseudoscientific literature I wonder who needs the Bolsheviks' harshness. If he falls into unclean hands, we will not loose ourselves. "Science and Life" publishes how to protect health. Another similar magazine with the idiotic title "Can the whole world live in one city." out of stupidity, and then talk about politics.

[place]

.

Quote: Kirill Dou

Well, of course, if you take away property, land, tools and livestock from the peasant-owners, you will get "terrorists" and "bandits" who will hate you and organize sabotage. "The mustachioed effective manager Joe" himself created the problem, and then began to "solve" it in the most accessible way. This video is an attempt not to "unravel", but to "justify" the consequences "of the genius of the" mustachioed "leader of nations.

Well, you are just a "typical representative" ....... And the commies also ate living children ....... and ritually kissed cats in the ass on great Soviet holidays ..... And people with two heads and barked like a dog. And the Russian people were then generally inferior, since they endured all this. But now everyone is bn, "academicians" ........

... Did you live then? Do you know the laws of the USSR, according to which it was supposed to "take land"? Link please. What laws adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR said that the land must be taken away? It is NOW - you can "seize the land". But not then.

Or maybe everything is much simpler? There is an expression: "In Russia the laws do not work." "They don't work" - but otherwise everything seems to be normal! BUT ALL NORMAL PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD DO NOT OBSERVE THE LAW IS CALLED BY SOLOV "CRIME". BEFORE THE LAW AND POWER. And only in our country a crime against the law of the state is called a crime of the government itself against the people. Moreover, this applies exclusively to Soviet power.

Many of our compatriots simply have brains for a long, long time on one side. And this is considered the norm.
The problem is not that "stupid Russians" lived 100 years ago. The problem is that NOW, in the era of electronic media, huge masses of people have reached idiocy

[AV]

Dzhugashvili Stalin ghoul and cannibal, bandit and psycho. Rather, remove his remains from Red Square.

[place]

It got to the point that the author, as it were, "makes a discovery." Who would have thought that one must first explain to oneself why and to whom it was profitable to repress millions, to take away land from millions of peasants (and where did they then use this land? For their latifundia?) ... to starve the population, to arrange Civil war in your own country? The history of mankind has never known such a thing.

FOR MILLIONS "DEAR RUSSIANS" THE ANSWER IS ONE AND IT IS EXTREMELY SIMPLE: "Don't think, it's all because the komunyaki were bad and they hated the Russians." And no matter what you prove, no matter what arguments you bring, no proof is needed. He needs something else: a firm personal conviction that neither this, nor his ancestors, bear any responsibility for the history of Russia. Responsible for Russia are the commies, Jews, Caucasians, etc. Here is the demand from them .... And we were fast asleep and did not know a fig. But we are "a great and noble people."

[zoill]

What kind of "mass repressions" can we talk about if less than five percent of the population has been repressed in 30 years. And less than 0,5% were sentenced to VMN. while the population has grown over the years by almost 40 million! I don't even want to compare with the last thirty years.

[AV]

The population did not grow thanks to this Satanist Dzhugashvili.

[naidas]

Quote: AV

The population did not grow thanks to this Satanist Dzhugashvili.

You are lying, Stalin has not canceled the relationship between men and women, the population has grown due to this. So, thanks to Stalin, the population has grown.

[zoill]

Quote: zoill

What the hell, for 34 years of the current "kingdom of freedom and democracy" there is not even a smell of any "economic leap. As if Putinoids are not puffed up. But there is a complete devouring of the population created under Soviet rule and the final savagery of the population!

[Seleznev S.P.]

The 37th year is the collapse of the idea of ​​a permanent world revolution that the Cominternists wanted to implement, this is a turning point and the transition to the construction of the Russian empire called the USSR

[place]

And yourself, on whose side are you? I guess it is on the side of global big business. The oligarch is not otherwise.

And about the "world revolution" - they would have read better Lenin's work "On the slogan of the United States of Europe" for 1915. There everything - everything on the topic of building a state independent from the West, which the current "creative" for some damn thing call "Empire" opposing the West.
AND THIS IS THE RESULT OF OUR DAY: Illiterate, stupid ignoramuses, dirty squalor, not understanding the meaning of what is happening, living deliberately in their own dying country ..... But the USSR has nothing to do with it!

[Ekpin Tөlentaev]

You need to know the history. In 1936, the new Constitution and the Law on Elections were adopted, according to which elections to the Supreme Soviets of all levels were to be held. Moreover, elections were provided for alternative ones. This was the fear of the local party and Soviet nomenclature. It mainly consisted of the old guard of the Bolsheviks. with a parish education. So she began to resist the alternative elections. They had a motive, supposedly there were still many unbeaten enemies of the people and they needed to be liquidated, otherwise they would seize power on the ground, and only then hold elections. The elections in December 1937 were held without alternatives, and since May-June of this year appeals about the identified enemies of the people have been raining down. Thus, together with possible enemies, personal opponents of the local "kings" were destroyed.